« Jean-Francois Revel, "Anti-Americanism" | Main | Time and Fallujah »

April 03, 2004

A Troll Smackdown Cocked and Ready

Predictably, an anti-War activist has emerged in the thread on the Rott post linking to my latest posts. Since the anti-war idiot is calling us Nazis (yawn) I thought I'd best prep a smackdown for him. Here it is, cocked and loaded. It's a quicky, but gets across what I think has basically happened to create the modern anti-war movement.

In case you’ve been asleep since WW-II, the modern anti-war movement is an outgrowth the Nazi Party, after undergoing a constant stream of communist revisions. The people in Berkeley who were protesting Lend-Lease and waving pro-Hitler banners were forced to decide between Hitler and Stalin when the Hitler-Stalin pact was broken. Since Hitler was the aggressor they decided to support Stalin. With America’s entry into WW-II they took conscientious objector status and sat out the war. After the war they founded the Pacifica Radio network, which they ran till the Trotskyites took it over. The Maoists ousted the Trotskyites from control of the network in the 1960’s, and have dominated it ever since, with the exception of constant purges and counter-takeovers. These are not right-wing accusations, this is what the various DJ’s and directors of Pacifica proudly proclaim in their retrospectives on the battles, posted on their own websites.

Meanwhile, the Paris movement of 1968 saw the advancement of the philosophy of Derrida, Foucault and Lacan. They asserted a philosophy designed to “destroy Western culture from the inside”. It was based largely on the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, a fact which remained hidden till fairly recently. Heidegger was the chief philosopher of the Nazi party, who went to his grave in the 1976 proclaiming that his work showed the might and righteousness of the Nazi cause. One of his chief products was cultural-relativism, which meant that nobody could issue a moral condemnation of Nazism since all cultures are equally moral, and especially considering how cultures choose between semanticist rationalism and postdialectic discourse, given that mythopoetical totality of constructivist dematerialism of German society in the 1930’s, in the light of postsemanticist modern theory and transcultural metadiscourse.

If that sentence turned off the moral judgement centers in your brain, it’s because it was meant to. That’s its purpose. The sentence was a random collection of loaded words generated by a recursive grammar generator. It contains no more meaning than a roll of the dice. But by relying on words with vaguely understood definitions in complex recursive sentences people unknowingly resort to their childhood experience with adult sentences filled with words they don’t know, in complex structures they can’t parse, and leap to their default childhood assumption that the speaker must be a “really smart adult”. It’s similar to speaking in tongues, yet elicits a quite different effect, and is one of the chief tools that Chomsky and the post-modernists have used to con people into thinking that their empty blatherings actually contain some level of knowledge about anything. Thank goodness that we know have the post-modernist text generator. Even the postmodernists can’t understand it, as evidenced by the fact that a physicist, Alan Sokal, conned the entire post-modernist movement in an episode known as the Social Text Affair.

The Nazi and Maoist anti-war movements, fed by funds from the Soviet Intelligence services, merged with the Nazi post-modernist movement from France, which also of course merged with the bizarre anti-American sentiment stemming from European envy and a feeling of powerlessness, giving us our modern anti-War movement, which is why A.N.S.W.E.R. rallies are led by an unreformed Trotskyite who ran around with Castro, Saddam, Khadaffi, and Kim Il Sung. Meanwhile the overseas protests in England were led by the British Communist Party while many of the remainder were organized in Greece by a former KGB general. These “enlightened” socialists only killed about 170 million people in the 20th century, NOT including war, so to think they stand for peace is beyond the absurd. Currently these same “enlightened” socialist NGO’s continue to oppose the selective use of DDT in the third world, which is resulting in about 3 million dead children a year, not that they care. Filling mass graves is all they know how to do.

So to put it bluntly, you’re heir to the goals of the Nazi party, chief of which is the disarmament and defeat of the Anglo-American capitalists, which is requisite for the advancement of the glories of National Socialism, emboddied so well in the rule of Saddam Hussein.

April 3, 2004 in Weblogs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Troll Smackdown Cocked and Ready:

» Troll Smackdown from democrats give conservatives indigestion
Sir George at bastardsword prepares to smackdown a troll by presenting proof that the modern anti-war movement is an outgrowth of Nazism. In case you've been asleep since WW-II, the modern anti-war movement is an outgrowth the Nazi Party, after... [Read More]

Tracked on Apr 4, 2004 7:25:58 AM

» More on the Left from Synthstuff - music, photography and more...
This one comes from bastardsword with a hat tip to dgci. A troll was calling Sir George a Nazi so Sir George decided to trace the growth of the Left from the Nazi era onward. Ugly brutish and short: In... [Read More]

Tracked on Apr 5, 2004 3:10:13 AM


The historical and intellectual ignorance in this post is staggering. 1.) the American Left did was not associated with Hitler or the Nazi movement. 2.) Anyone who's read Derrida or Foucault has known about their connection to Heidegger since the early 60s (when they first started publishing), and Heidegger's Nazism is well known by philosophers and pretty much everyone else who knows who the hell Heidegger was. Of course, anyone who's read Foucault and Derrida recognize that the influence Heidegger had on them came from his later, apolitical writings on language and thought, but then guilt-by association is the intellectually dishonest way to dismiss someone without having read them. Note, Heidegger barely mentioned Nazism after the war, and while he did go to his grave not apologizing, he hardly went to his grave proclaiming that his philosophy supported Nazism. In fact, in his later works he talked about epistemic, linguistic, and cultural pluralism. Hardly a Nazi sentiment.

My suggestion, do real research before spouting off disingenuous nonsense like this.

Posted by: Strange at Apr 5, 2004 3:59:46 PM

Actually, he did go to his grave proclaiming that very thing. He never inched back from his support of them, but it's a very politically incorrect stance. Also the left successfully hid his affiliation until the 1980's, when it caused quite a stir in France.

And like everyone who'd supported the goals of socialism in Germany and Italy before they went nuts, all references were renounced and denied. Prior to the breakup of the Hitler-Stalin pact Mussolini and Hitler considered Stalin to be a crypto-fascist, and Stalin considered Hitler and Mussolini to be crypto communists. Their goals were the same, but they debated the basic philosophy and methods.

As to the differences, both groups are so looney that it's like a debate between a Romulan and a Klingon at a Star Trek convention. They both may think their talking about the real world, but actually its just a bizarre Marxist conspiracy theory about the way the world works. Marx wouldn't even pass as science-fiction.

The extreme left had many ties to Hitler in the 1930's, and the pro-Nazi sentiment in the publication "Social Justice" finally got Father Coughlin yanked off the air.

Posted by: George Turner at Apr 5, 2004 4:33:08 PM

As I said over at Vox's, George is basically correct on the pre-WW2 pacifism-Hitler-Stalin issue, but has some of the details wrong. The Leftist anti-intervention crowd were Communists, not Nazis. They did support the Nazis until the German invasion of Russia, but not for the reason he gives. Their primary support was always for Stalin. In the earlier part of the 1930s when the Communists considered fascism to be a threat to their movement, American Communists supported fighting fascists, specifically in places such as Spain. However, as soon as the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression pact of 1939 was made between Hitler and Stalin, this group changed its position 180 degrees and started attacking anyone who wanted to fight fascism, such as the "warmonger" FDR. When Germany later invaded the USSR, they flipped around again and suddenly supported intervention once more! Leftists love to crow about their early anti-fascism, but are silent about these later hypocritical flip-flops...

So Strange's point #1 is literally correct -- the Left of the time were not Nazis -- but the fact remains that some of them did give aid and comfort to Hitler after the Pact by following Moscow's bidding.

Posted by: Varenius at Apr 5, 2004 5:59:05 PM

Thanks Varenius!

But there are always a few who aren't with the program, focusing on eugenics and such.

Posted by: George Turner at Apr 5, 2004 7:33:09 PM

the communists supported Stalin, and there was a debate about whether to continue to do so after he aligned himself with Hitler. There wasn't any direct support for Hitler (who was seen as being hostile to communist movements in Germany). As late as 1940s, the Left was still working closely with FDR, though the Communist party wasn't doing so directly. Of course, as Varenius makes clear, the Communist party and the bulk of the American Left were two different things.

George, I bet you can't find a single piece in which Heidegger stated he supported the Nazi party or philosophy after 1945. Introduction to Metaphysics was published in 51 (52?) and has distinctly Nazi sentiments, but it was taken from lectures he gave in the late 1920s/early 30s. As I said, though, he never disavowed those ideas.

And besides, it's downright silly to associate post-structuralists with Nazism, simply because they were influenced by Heidegger's post-linguistic turn (anti-Nazi) ideas.

Posted by: Strange at Apr 5, 2004 8:02:29 PM

The linguistic turn is very Nazi. To the Nazi's loaded words have power to move the masses. They thought that be changing the discourse, using words to control thoughts, they could build a new society.

But aside from all that, why are so many Chomskyites out there screaming "Death to Zion! Down with the Fascist Jew!" and tearing up the signs of anyone who disagrees?

Posted by: George Turner at Apr 5, 2004 9:00:19 PM

Ah. Top Google hit out of 17,000 for "Heidegger Nazi"

as late as 1967, in an interview with the German periodical "Der Spiegel" Heidegger professed his belief in Hitler as the savior of the German people, and even at that time (1967) Heidegger saw the German people as the inheritors of the Zeit-geist as described in Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit".

Posted by: George Turner at Apr 5, 2004 9:08:25 PM

Strange writes:

the communists supported Stalin, and there was a debate about whether to continue to do so after he aligned himself with Hitler.

That was not true for the majority, based on what I've read. It certainly was not true for those who remained in the CPUSA, which always took its cue from Moscow. Do you remember any references you can give me on this?

Of course, as Varenius makes clear, the Communist party and the bulk of the American Left were two different things.

I'm glad you are willing to make such distinctions. Now, will you please be consistent and start showing the same charity in your statements about the Right on your blog?

Posted by: Varenius at Apr 6, 2004 2:40:15 PM

i come from best search engine http://www.google.com

Posted by: search engine at Aug 10, 2005 5:27:40 PM